In order to try and grasp the meaning of anything at all, Digidizem uses one very slick simple question:

Why?

For example: Question: Why do we study hard in high school? Answer: In order to be able to acquire better further education. Question: Why do we desire the best education? Answer: In order to be able to get better job opportunities. Question: Why do we desire the best job? Answer: In order to gain fame / money / both / anything else. Question: Why do we desire the best of either of these options? Answer: In order to have whatever we want otherwise. Question: Why do we desire the best of all? Answer: In order to have our joy / happiness / bliss / fulfilment. Question: Why do we desire Happiness? fulfilment? Bliss? Answer: Here some would say it is our destiny, the work for god, or any other thing.
And here, a never ending loop of "Why? Because (some protection answer)!" would start about.

The thing is, you could always ask "why?", but eventually the answer would be merely "god", or "because".
The reason for that, as far as Digidizem goes, is the inherited pride every single human being is raised with,
denying him the option to think, and let alone understand, an idea that suggests human beings
are as useless and meaningless as any other piece of dust.
There is no, eventually, any better answer to the "final why?" other than "for no reason at all".

Of Course, this takes a lot of courage to embrace. To embrace that we have no meaning at all? Quite hard.
Never the less, we do find meanings in so many other, less grandiose things. we give things a reason, in order to keep
on moving, to have something to live for, fight for, love for, endure for.
The idea of a meaningless universe does not change these small, significant meanings we pour into our lives.
It is the wonderful fact that we do give meaning to so many things that enables, once embraced, the idea of a meaningless
universe to be the "golden hyper way" to a very fine, refined bliss of mind.

How can I claim with such a simple "Why? - Because." technique that the universe is meaningless?
Well let's start from scratch. If the end of the universe would come to be tomorrow night, will the universe itself actually mind?
As human beings, for us, it could be devastating, but as we already know nowadays, human beings are such an insignificant portion of the
whole universe, that the opinion of this race about the end the existence of the universe, important as it may believe it is, is irrelevant.
Now let's go onwards with it. For a creature bound by physics, existence is all there is to it. For a universe, though, come to think of it,
contains both existence and inexistence, so there is no such thing as an end. total inexistence of physics, clouded energy or anything at all,
does not change the fact that the universe concept still exists at such a point, even if a race such as humanity can't be in it.
And now let's deepen in: let's try to look at the beginning of physical matter:

option one would be: there always was some kind of matter.
option two would be: there is a phenomenon of actual creation: the creation of something out of actual total inexistence.
be it this way or that, there was nothing BEFORE it. if there was nothing before it, then in other words, there was no REASON for it.
If there was no reason to start with, how could there be a reason to anything else? And if there is no reason for anything else,
how could there be an actual meaning to anything?

The causation (event and effect) resembles yet differs from the meaning reasoning.
The fact that we can most of the time determine the event that is the cause for a specific effect, for example: a glass dropping to the floor [effect]
due to a shelf that broke [event], does not change the idea that the same questioning to the root all effects, would end one of the
two options mentioned above. As far as reason goes, one would settle for the idea that maybe there is no ROOT reason for a glass dropping to the
floor. It is somewhat harder to embrace the same idea to the extent of there is no ROOT meaning for anything actually.
Hence it is actually the same, but differs in acceptance.

These two options: Actual creation and Infinite existence of matter do not collide.
The two options actually come down to one root.
The universe (or multiverse, if you will).
Again, as said at the introduction of Digidizem, this is nothing new to mankind.
It is merely a refreshing, other point of view.
People already said it in various different ways. Maybe never under the no meaning at all phenomenon, but even so it has been told before.
One grand something, evolving to yin and yang, good and bad, heaven and earth. Not the first time to come out.
Digidizem simply took it to another direction, that being the direction of Meaning, and the duality in its inexistence equation.

Meaningless universe. That is Foundation One.

Foundation Two - Recognized Egoism.

As the second foundation, Recognized Egoism turns to the question of choice, will and need.
This is not the question whether there is a choice or an illusion of choice, but the question of why a choice is being made.
Any action, as pure or corrupt as it may be, ALWAYS comes from an individual's will. The question then would be, how does this individual
will occur.
Here Digidizem, again in another way yet with great resemblance finds a combination of needs, that eventually gets to one's will.
Every living thing (Minerals, plants and animals as well, to some extent) has the same basic needs, as such:

The need to stay alive. (immediate survival)

The need to eat and drink. (maintenance for survival)

The need to sleep. (maintenance for survival)

The need to urinate and defecate. (maintenance for survival)

The need to reproduce. (long term survival)

These needs are common to all, and are well known and considered.
Some would say, "Hey, what about love?" and to that question the answer is: Love indeed is an important need and will be discussed in its own
chapter, but it is not as basic as the ones stated above. a human being given these needs alone, could survive easily, just like tigers,
snails and spiders, for example.
Now, anyone can understand that everything we do is first of all done for survival. with no need to survive, nothing would actually happen.
Through this need to survive, a living creature usually feeds, sleeps and disposes - all as a part of the maintenance program for survival.
Then comes the long term survival instinct which is to reproduce.
But is that all?
Think about it.
Let us assume that one has done all these.
What now? Is the answer really nothing?

As for plants, animals, minerals, and anything else, the answer is most likely: Yes, this is it. a cat, for example, has no problem with spending
all day long doing nothing. It might play, it might not, but it won't go crazy.
Now, if a human being would try the same thing. Doing absolutely, 100%, pure nothing.
How long would it last?
How long can the strongest human being be in a state of doing nothing (not even meditating) after sleeping, eating, drinking, disposing and reproducing
could survive?
One would presume that a month of 100% nothing extra would probably finish the job of accomplishing mind sickness, maybe even to the extent of it
being incurable, I promise you less is enough.

So what would be the Sixth Need?

Digidizem suggests mankind has a Sixth need: to be able to "Get Through Change" for the basic survival.
When I say "get through change" I mean, in other words, somehow spend the time gaps between the other four basic needs, with which all together supplies
the possibility of fulfilling the first among the six basic needs, the one that all other five are born from - the need to survive.

Realizing this idea of the sixth need is important. The reason is, that everything we do that is not for the basic need of biological surviving,
we do in order to spend the time that our minds can't handle (unless trained for) "between meals".
This basic need is the one where human beings fulfil their "higher" goals. That is the thing that makes us so vastly different from animals,
plants and minerals. Above all, that is the little reason Human beings have for doing whatever it is they are doing.
And when we look at it this way: It is obvious that ANYTHING a human does is being done since this specific human WANTS to do it.

Let's go to the extreme:

A person kills himself: Because HE WANTS to die.

A person gives up on his life for his loved ones: Because HE WANTS them to live, even with the price tag on his own life.

A mother gives her heart to her son in a surgery: Because SHE CAN'T live with the thought that she could have saved him and didn't.

This is it, No matter how you would try to put it, and if you choose to give it a shining light or a grim one.
Every action any human does is because he wants to, she needs it, we love it. It is, eventually, nothing more than the fulfilment of one's need to
spend time between meals, to get through change, to survive change.
As it is a need being fulfilled, it is always the individual's need. As it turns out, even Altruism is actually an undercover Egoism.

So is this the end of doing "good" deeds? Is it the dawn of a "bad" era? Not so fast.
That is why we speak of Recognized Egoism.
Even though everything that is being done is done for the sole purpose of fulfilling one's need, hence will, still so many people WANT to
help, give, sacrifice, nourish.
So there is no true Altruism, but it does not matter, and the universe goes on without it, the world goes on without it, humans live without it:
Just Fine.
If you Recognize your Egoism, Work with it, Embrace it, Use it wisely, things should go along as said: Just Fine.

Recognized Egoism. That is Foundation Two.

Foundation Three - Relevance.

Why would relevance be a foundation? When you look at things through the eyes of Digidizem, It Is so important that the question is, actually:
How come relevance wasn't a foundation in EVERY SINGLE ONE of the philosophies out there???

If you think and therefore you are ("cogito ergo sum": Rene Descartes), so if you think you are not, are you not?
And if you think you are a nut?

If everything is your imagination or creation, and when you die, the whole multiverse dies with you, how come change
occurs when you are out of conscious?

If everything is a dream, but then maybe not since you can have people prove they have seen you, photographed you,
filmed you sleeping, hence there is constant being of one long trail, is it a dream within a dream within a dream? Maybe in another
dream?

If there is no real substance and we are all a rubble bubble of randomly scattered quantum particles, how come we don't walk
through walls?

Thousands of philosophies.
Digidizem does not try to prove that one, some or all of them are wrong or right.
rather, Digidizem asks:

Does it matter? Is it relevant?

In all these cases, one gets hurt, physically and mentally.
In all these cases, one gets gratified, physically and mentally.

So...

We love, we cuddle, we run, we fight, we cry, we hate.
Human beings go through all that, be it a dream, an illusion, a delusion, an inexisting
epiphany or whatever you are going to call it.
Human beings sense it with all 5 fully explainable senses, and one bared in mind and subject
to proof, yet undeniable, "sixth" or "intuitional" sense.

So however it is, if a way does not regard what is relevant for the creature it is supposed to guide, why bother?